QuickTopic logo Create New TopicNew Topic My TopicsMy Topics News
 

Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

Postal Letter Carriers

^     All messages            5128-5143 of 5143  5112-5127 >>
5143
RIKSNYPerson was signed in when posted
01-22-2016
08:53 AM ET (US)
where were you a year ago when this was news?
5142
26 yearer
01-22-2016
08:48 AM ET (US)
With a ‘Golden Parachute’ in Hand, Donahoe Opposes Retirement for Young Workers
 January 26, 2015 APWU, Donahoe retires, PMG, postal 34 Comments
From the American Postal Workers Union:

01/26/2015 – When Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe retires at the end of the week, he’ll get a retirement package of more than $4 million.

Not bad for a “civil servant.”


 
patBut in his controversial farewell address to reporters at the National Press Club on Jan. 6, Donahoe made clear that he doesn’t think the union’s newest members deserve any postal retirement at all.

“In today’s world, does it really make sense to offer the promise of a government pension to a 22-year-old who is just entering the workforce?” he asked.

And apparently Donahoe’s views have nothing to do with the Postal Service’s manufactured “financial crisis.” He opposes government pensions on principle and wants to impose his view to the entire federal government.

“I would encourage Congress to view the Postal Service as a test bed or laboratory of change that might be applied to the rest of the federal government,” he said.

“I’d like to see the Congress encourage much more experimentation at the federal level,” Donahoe added. “The Postal Service has the kind of management that would appreciate being at the front edge of change and would make good use of opportunities.”

APWU President Mark Dimondstein denounced Donahoe’s parting shot at young workers. “Donahoe’s remarks are the height of hypocrisy,” the union president said. “Every worker should be able to look forward to a stable, secure retirement.”

According to a financial report filed by USPS December, as of Sept. 30, 2014, Donahoe’s defined-benefit pension plan totaled $4,080,932.
5141
Retiree
01-12-2016
01:18 PM ET (US)
Will you invest in the Postal Service?
  Messages 5140-5139 deleted by author 01-18-2016 01:47 AM
5138
Retired
01-02-2016
03:23 AM ET (US)
I have no answer to the question: How do I enjoy my postal job? I tried everything.
5137
Postal Employee AdvocatePerson was signed in when posted
12-31-2015
12:15 AM ET (US)
Update and Correction to Article on
How to Respond to Investigative Interviews or Pre-Disciplinary Interviews

Proving that I don’t know everything and am still a student, I’ve been schooled regarding how the 5th Amendment applies to federal employees when they are being interviewed during an official investigation. Under certain circumstances federal employees DO have to waive their 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination in administrative matters. Exceptions occur whenever questions focus on conduct that could be interpreted as criminal – an act for which they can be prosecuted. So things like stealing mail, money or stamps, drug use on the job, assault, workers’ comp fraud, etc. are not just violations of agency rules and regulations, but are also violations of specific criminal codes or statutes. If the subject of the supervisor’s investigation includes conduct for which you could be criminally prosecuted, then you have an entitlement against self-incrimination and don’t have to answer.

I was somewhat familiar with a Rights form used by the OIG’s office, called a Garrity and/or Kalkines warning. Therein Interviewees are advised that they are either provided immunity from criminal prosecution if they submit to the administrative interview or they have the right to not participate in the interview. I had not previously read the text of the actual decision by the Court of Claims in its 1973 Kalkines decision until I was challenged about my claim that the 5th Amendment also applied to administrative matters. And in my experience, the only reference to Kalkines in EEO or MSPB is whenever there are simultaneous criminal charges pending.

If an employee refuses to answer questions when presented with the Kalkines warning, the employee may be terminated for that refusal. Any answers that the employee provides may be used for administrative purposes, but not for any criminal prosecution. If an employee lies during a compelled interview, however, the employee may be prosecuted for lying. See DOJ Wray Memo, dated May 6, 2005.

So I acknowledge my overly broad advice regarding Investigative Interviews. If the investigation is strictly administrative regarding the official performance of the employee’s duties, then the employee IS compelled to cooperate. But if an administrative investigative interview raises possible criminal conduct, the employee is not obligated to respond. It’s at that point that the OIG may be asked to intervene and present the employee with a Garrity or Kalkines Rights form.

My regrets for the misleading and incomplete previous advice. I appreciate the reasoned and logical arguments posed by others that led to my further research into this subject. Hopefully, the exceptions described above will assist in correcting that error.

     J.R. Pritchett
     Administrative Law Representative
     postalemployeeadvocate@juno.com
     (208) 254-9196
5136
Postal Employee AdvocatePerson was signed in when posted
12-29-2015
10:13 PM ET (US)
How to Respond to Investigative Interviews or Pre-Disciplinary Interviews

For procedural purposes, before an employee receives any discipline, management is required to give the employee an opportunity to respond, often referred to as the employee’s “day in court”. These occur in the form of an Investigatory Interview (I.I.) or Pre-Disciplinary Interview (PDI).

First, calling it the employee’s day in court is a misnomer. The employee is being interviewed by management, who cannot act both as the prosecutor and the judge. Ostensibly a “day in court” is presented to a judge, arbitrator or other unbiased mediator. This mischaracterization of the interview initially leaves an employee with the impression that there will be some fairness and weighing of circumstances. Under those conditions an employee may be more likely to reveal information they may not otherwise feel comfortable revealing – and with good reason.

In most cases, supervisors and managers have zero training in conducting investigations of any type. But under Article 3, Management’s Right to Manage, they have the right to do pretty much anything that they don’t know how to do. So a template or script is provided by the District’s Labor Relations Office. Almost universally one of the first things that the employee will be told is their obligation under ELM 665.3 that they “must cooperate in any postal investigation.” That agency rule however, does not waive other obligations or protections under law.

Anyone who has ever watched a TV cop show is familiar with the Miranda Rights afforded to anyone who is arrested…”You have the right to remain silent…anything you say can and will be used against you…” You have the right NOT to say anything that could possibly incriminate yourself. You have the right to keep your mouth shut – a difficult concept for too many people (myself included). [Rather than get into the history of Miranda and how its genesis arose as a result of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 5th Amendment, the reader can look it up on the Court’s website or on Wikipedia.]

When a supervisor or manager tells you during an I.I. that you have an obligation to cooperate, that does not waive or supersede your right against self-incrimination. Of course you don’t know yet what questions are going to be asked, so how do you know whether or not you could be incriminating yourself? If you are told that this interview could possibly lead to discipline, up to and including removal that becomes the equivalent of notice of your Miranda Rights. You do not have to agree to answer questions that could be used against you. Once advised that your responses could be used to discipline or remove you the employee should immediately invoke their 5th Amendment Right against self-incrimination and refuse to answer any questions. The employee should merely state for the record, “Since you have advised me that my responses could result in discipline or removal from the Postal Service, I invoke my 5th Amendment Right against self-incrimination, and respectfully decline to respond to any questions.”

Keep in mind that the burden of proof – evidence that the employee committed the infraction – always rests with the Postal Service. Sometimes they may have enough documentary evidence to meet that burden. More often than not, their evidence would be insufficient without some type of admission or acknowledgement from the employee that they committed the infraction. That’s where I.I.’s & PDI’s are relied on. They rely on the employee to incriminate themselves. Also consider if the investigation were about another employee, or a situation unrelated to the employee being interviewed, you would not be advised that the interview could possibly lead to discipline.

     J.R. Pritchett,
     Administrative Law Representative
     postalemployeeadvocate@juno.com
     (208) 254-9196


cut here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Since you have advised me that my responses could result in discipline or removal from the Postal Service, I invoke my 5th Amendment Right against self-incrimination, and respectfully decline to respond to any questions.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fold and place in wallet or purse
5135
Donald Hemphill
12-03-2015
05:05 PM ET (US)
Just makes me sick...and we're out here busting our butt for
what...UNBELIEVABLE

Donald W.Hemphill
Nalc Br. 229
President
719-242-8585
5134
26 yearer
12-03-2015
04:32 PM ET (US)
Jack Potter made more (from the USPS) than you did last year
 July 29, 2015 postal 37 Comments
POTTER
Former PMG Jack Potter

It has been almost five years now since Jack Potter retired as Postmaster General, so you might be surprised to learn that he’s still on the payroll- and he probably made more than you did last year. According to a recent OIG report, Potter was paid $110,625 in “deferred compensation” last year. Deferred compensation is a way of getting around federal executive salary caps- pay in excess of the cap in a given year goes in to a deferred compensation fund, to be doled out after the executive has left the USPS. Potter had over a million dollars accumulated in his fund when he retired. After receiving his payment last year, he has over a half million left. Potter is currently the President and CEO of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, where he is paid a reported $350 thousand a year, with up to a 20% annual bonus.


 
Potter isn’t the highest paid former USPS exec- that honor goes to Ross Philo. If the name doesn’t ring a bell, it’s understandable- Ross was CIO for just three years, from 2008 to 2011. Despite his brief tenure, he managed to pile up a deferred compensation fund of $642,999 before he left, on top of his regular salary, capped at $230,000. He was paid $150,111 last year, and still has over $450K of USPS customers’ money to look forward to in the coming years.
5133
postalvetPerson was signed in when posted
10-16-2015
08:12 PM ET (US)
/m5132 how did you know the bids were open? it should have been a bid sheet. so in a few days another sheet will come out with the successful bidders.
5132
New Carrier
10-16-2015
06:27 PM ET (US)
A bidding period had just ended on 10/12/2015 and placement for successful bids are on 10/31/2015. I'm a newly converted regular and I bid on a couple of routes. How do I know if I will get the route or not? Will they send something in the mail or will the managers at my home station tell me? Also I heard that if I don't have a successful bid, I will be placed on a residual route. I'm now an unassigned carrier.
5131
Dan
10-15-2015
06:49 PM ET (US)
That's obvious the harder we work the more money they get. That's what I tried to tell them dummies. More bonus for them. How stupid do they think we are. Is that why they don't hire enough people.? U no the freeze on hiring use to be the excuse . Less people more money for them is that how it works?
5130
postalvetPerson was signed in when posted
10-15-2015
05:49 PM ET (US)
/m5129 because management now a days has to answer to the manager above them who has to answer to the manager above them, all so they can get a good review which will get them a bonus and more money.

management does not get step increases any more so the only way to get more money is to repeat the above. and as most know the only reason to go into management is to get more money.
5129
dan
10-15-2015
05:43 PM ET (US)
why does management not want good carriers anymore. Doesn't matter how u do ur job all that they care about is get rid of mail Pile boxes full don't worry about who lives there get back when I say. Why is there so much turn around in management? All we ever get is somebody nobody else wants and then we pay for it . Can u file grievances with another shop steward if u don't want any dealings with shop steward in ur on office.? Frustrated!!!!! I no ur not suppose to argue with management but how do u ever get point across? Does it help to go over pm head or make it worse?
5128
Deleted by author 10-14-2015 10:21 PM
5127
Letter carrier Li NY
10-09-2015
09:45 AM ET (US)
I am attempting to challenge management on the "new" scanner insisting they are a safety hazard to have on person throughout the daily delivery. I contest the scanner beeps every 2 seconds, which is similar to a cell phone alert which is strictly forbidden to look at due to safety and delivery accuracy concerns. As well as alerting every possible 4 legged safety concern in the area when the beeping just doesn't stop! If anyone can help or give input on the situation all information would be welcome.
Edited 10-09-2015 09:46 AM
^     All messages            5128-5143 of 5143  5112-5127 >>

Print | RSS Views: 228245 (Unique: 36190 ) / Subscribers: 33 | What's this?